[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6248561,"mediaKeyId","3209196-bff66e9888c2d74f6661d874dee35ee0","parentId",3209196,"title","Committee debates amendment to H.248 aimed at shifting childcare costs off Education Fund; members split and defer final action","audioSeconds",609,"startMs",1644000,"endMs",2253000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3209196-bff66e9888c2d74f6661d874dee35ee0&start=1644&end=2253","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3209196-bff66e9888c2d74f6661d874dee35ee0/thumbnail_1644000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6248561/Vermont/Committee-debates-amendment-to-H248-aimed-at-shifting-childcare-costs-off-Education-Fund-members-split-and-defer-final-action","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6248561-0cca28ef32d6743a0bb57ddc2b8905ee/orig.mp4?Expires=1776495562&Signature=XMLNSw3g9uMhLB1CGqt5jatXh5PW6VnIbKBIFW7YSMmJD~pq54ac2jaWDHbYKXWbZ5RyG6Kzipr0yqPsqQuwxi1sbALTqmZYNPmTgzBfIWmboJv1pfqUtY4zoHkSLZn3W-mVBgeSwho4LKYCYOo0PgCfxjRx3L36M7biSPogvkPvsujzO2ZEjBvMmCL83Tk7t8Bkx2TUonywMiFcm1bCaM23gUALamzTc6tiBSLbys~Y7O6GyldPdgYPvaYnZEbheY9r-LrOPEFl7O-Led55dRPbqk9hiW1Z4ZJJenQ19JqAmu~6BoIaeKluZyDN2QH8uhWeXJMJ4gKb3pfoS9nhkg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-05-07T11:34:24.797Z","article","The Vermont House Committee on Education discussed an amendment to H.248 on May 6 that would use childcare funding mechanisms to reduce pressure on the Education Fund. Committee members debated whether to act now or wait for Joint Fiscal Office (JFO) analysis and additional information on federal implications and the sustainability of the childcare contribution special fund.

One committee member said the change is an “order of operations” issue and preferred to wait for JFO’s review, noting JFO is conducting a study scheduled to be ready by January. Other members said that, if the money is available and federal restrictions can be unwound, the amendment conceptually makes sense and could relieve property taxpayers.

The committee discussed timing and process: members asked whether an unfavorable recommendation at this stage would prevent future consideration. Staff clarified that the amendment could be offered again on the floor, could be a standalone bill, or be addressed early next year after JFO completes its work.

At the close of the discussion, the committee conducted an informal hand count to gauge support. The transcript records the chair asking members to indicate if they found the amendment unfavorable or favorable; the reported preliminary count was seven members indicating unfavorable and three indicating favorable, with the chair later saying the total was 11. The transcript does not record a formal motion to adopt the amendment or a committee vote to report it out.

Committee members said they would prepare explanatory language to accompany any unfavorable recommendation to signal support for further study and for efforts to relieve costs on the Education Fund. Several members reiterated they supported pursuing options to shift costs, but differed on whether to act before JFO’s analysis is complete.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Education - 2025-05-06 - 2:00 PM","oneSentenceSummary","The House Education Committee considered an amendment to H.248 that would use CCVAP or other childcare funding mechanisms to relieve pressure on the Education Fund. Members discussed JFO analysis and timing; the committee took an informal hand count but did not formally adopt the amendment.","taxTitle","Education, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative , Vermont","taxId",30651,"location","Vermont","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6248565,"Central Vermont Adult Education backs bell‑to‑bell school cellphone ban in House Education hearing",41,1157000,1198000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3209196-bff66e9888c2d74f6661d874dee35ee0&start=1157&end=1198","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3209196-bff66e9888c2d74f6661d874dee35ee0/thumbnail_1157000.jpg","/articles/6248565/Vermont/Central-Vermont-Adult-Education-backs-belltobell-school-cellphone-ban-in-House-Education-hearing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6248565-84de3c08856e3ec5dff72c2ddad2d908/orig.mp4?Expires=1776495562&Signature=lddNpw1YYER3~S~nqOtB~gwcTbpHepxykzVWjNR8LG7Tsbga9ellb-m2fj4vTWXxnlXf2fnYWE1eUDsptHZXPjKFvPXDoJ2VZAQauZuHDVtt-sqjz4ScIS7SUXiGDhmF09OcM6HBEHjpvWJ~Bc05o8P9b8Pe-NLhYmoMzBDWGLN2bJgH6vTH9eYh5ftvk5swO9NRgrrrhx~R57baeOVNtQR0qdfUZZhgiqQw0SPOaFVtRCO6lHzFq7p~zuZPpO3D3wMJhFXaWR5ID9hpM8Z4LELnbuCAiLDq~IQ8paR~sWejM8NLKjSbIuPiLtkX9AQFSR2qqKd9e3fUqPb-J0KgqQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At the May 6 hearing of the Vermont House Committee on Education, Catherine Kaukstein, executive director of Central Vermont Adult Education, told committee members that her organization supports a phone‑free schools bill with a “bell‑to‑bell prohibition” on cellphones.

Kaukstein said adult‑education programs sometimes see the consequences of in‑school cellphone use—“cyberbullying in the schools as well … and that's a really big cause for dropouts,” she said—linking the issue to student retention and adult‑education pathways.

A committee member asked Kaukstein to confirm Central Vermont Adult Education’s position; she replied that her organization was “in strong support of a phone free schools bill with a bell to bell prohibition on cell phones,” and noted that some students arrive at adult‑education programs after school disengagement.

Committee discussion in the transcript moved on before members took formal action on any phone‑ban proposal; no committee vote or formal referral is recorded in the hearing excerpt.","A Central Vermont Adult Education representative told the House Education Committee on May 6 that the provider supports a bill banning student cellphone use during the school day, citing cyberbullying and dropout risk.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6248570,"Vermont adult‑education providers press House Education to back compromise funding language",1382,200000,1582000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3209196-bff66e9888c2d74f6661d874dee35ee0&start=200&end=1582","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3209196-bff66e9888c2d74f6661d874dee35ee0/thumbnail_200000.jpg","/articles/6248570/Vermont/Vermont-adulteducation-providers-press-House-Education-to-back-compromise-funding-language","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6248570-f966bce231f3538257d2a35a0747dd48/orig.mp4?Expires=1776495562&Signature=E9bwnky1PLxK0JRSByQrB2WK5Pp4Ja22SXxzESy2Ue5k-xxm-asvETJhlieaMYGyErkNennZXCvxFXa7eo617gG1jcbrfz-L3lwXt-NjzVGOvabqm1os3BpDhFuBHEknD0KI2LegRX7nyy~uSedIsEis8sm-Yo7T-O~6fJ07V5OLEdHGMGBsBZFE4Iapjk7~wY5sl5BKWLjDpe9pZmJhKPb~SRG6ErAFS139FeWUtcsJV6PA3zu2R4pQh8OYiZjbmNx6hDppSMscRPi15Fjge3mW9t4WnKRwPTA~Mq5lmniqoQekPCgq-674KcTT55BA2K4dmg4CRVa26gHuIS4qUg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Catherine Kaukstein, executive director of Central Vermont Adult Education, and Brian Kravis, director of outreach and workforce development at Central Vermont Adult Education, told the Vermont House Committee on Education on May 6 that a recent Agency of Education request for proposals (RFP) shifts how state adult‑education funds are allocated and would sharply reduce funding for providers in more rural counties.

Kaukstein said the RFP “completely replaced the state board funding formula with the 26 percent two‑year average” and that the agency’s per‑pupil allocation in the RFP “has become … the sum total of the allocation.” She told the committee the change would cause significant cuts in some regions: “Northeast Kingdom will lose over $500,000 in funding,” she said.

The audience heard that while the statewide appropriation for adult education was not reduced this budget cycle, the agency’s approach to distributing that appropriation—moving from the long‑standing State Board formula to a per‑student allocation—was not the process the study committee recommended. Kaukstein said providers had agreed the funding formula needed modernization but that the study committee expected an inclusive process that “includes provider expertise.”

Under the State Board distribution, per‑student funding varied widely; testimony referenced a historical range of about $2,700 to $6,000 per student. The Agency of Education’s per‑student figure cited in testimony was $3,294. Providers representing 11 of Vermont’s 14 counties—Central Vermont Adult Education, the Tutorial Center (TTC), and Vermont Adult Learning—said they support a per‑student funding basis over time but asked for a transition period to blunt large short‑term cuts to the Northeast Kingdom Learning Services (NEKLS).

Kaukstein described a compromise the adult‑education providers drafted: an interim allocation that is an average of the old state board formula and the two‑year student average the AOE used in the RFP. She said the compromise was intended “only for FY26–FY28 to reduce the cut to NEKLS while we work with the Agency of Education and the Agency of Administration on a long‑term equitable solution around how we allocate the funding.”

Committee members asked clarifying questions about which language currently sits in the conference committee’s versions of the budget and whether the proposed compromise appears in either the House or Senate language. Witnesses urged the committee to recommend that legislative counsel draft the compromise language for the budget conference committee; the witnesses also urged that the current RFP not be rescinded and that existing proposals submitted under the April 25 deadline remain valid, because providers had invested many staff hours preparing 60‑page proposals for a three‑year contract term.

No formal committee motion to adopt the providers’ language is recorded in the transcript. Committee members expressed differing views in discussion: some favored preserving the status quo until a fuller study is complete, while others said a glide‑path compromise would reduce disruption to providers and staff. Several members noted that the Joint Fiscal Office (JFO) and the Agency of Education would need to be involved in any longer‑term solution.

Providers asked the committee to forward the compromise language to the conference committee and to have legislative counsel draft it, but the transcript does not record a formal vote on that request. Committee deliberations closed with members agreeing to prepare guidance language to send to the conference committee and to continue discussions with affected agencies and providers.

Kaukstein and Kravis represented the provider perspective and provided the committee with the funding‑distribution memo and charts that the committee referenced in its questions. The committee said it would consider the providers’ input when advising the House and Senate appropriations conferees.

","Providers told the House Education Committee that an Agency of Education RFP replaced the State Board funding formula with a per‑student allocation that would cut rural providers; they asked the committee to recommend compromise budget language to the conference committee while a longer review proceeds.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee debates amendment to H.248 aimed at shifting childcare costs off Education Fund; members split and defer final action

Central Vermont Adult Education backs bell‑to‑bell school cellphone ban in House Education hearing

Vermont adult‑education providers press House Education to back compromise funding language